Thanks for flavour on Arab armies, Essa! (And for latest part, Rolling Wave! And everyone else: this is a really interesting thread and your posts have taught me a lot!)

Is this book any good on Caliphate Military, or could you recommend any other?

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0415250935/ref=mp_s_a_3?qid=1343031473&sr=8-3"]The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State (Warfare and History):Amazon:Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51iE5m2OdsL.@@AMEPARAM@@51iE5m2OdsL[/ame]

"...the Sasanians ruled their realm by what we have termed the Sasanian-Parthian confederacy. This was a predominantly decentralized, and dynastic system of government...", p3.

"As we shall see, had it not been for the Parthian withdrawal from the Sasanian-Parthian confederacy toward the end of the rul of Khusrow II Parviz, the Byzantines might very well have become a client state of the Sasanians.....", p3.

"The debacle of the Sasanian-Parthian confederacy during the last years of the Sasanian/Byzantine wars, however, had a far greater consequence for late antique Iranian history: the ultimate defeat of the Sasanians by the Arab armies and the eradication of their empire by the middle of the seventh century.", p3.

"The conquest of Iraq occurred precisely during the period of internecine warfare between the Pahlav and the Parsig. The two factions, engrossed in their strife in promoting their own candidates to the throne, were incapable of putting up a united defense against the encroaching Arab armies.", p4.

"The subsequent conquest of the Iranian plateau, moreover, was ultimately successful because powerful Parthian dynastic families of the "kust-i khwarasan" and "kust-i adurbadagan" abandoned the last Sasanian king, Yazdgird III, withdrew their support from Sasanian kingship, and made peace with the Arab armies.", p4.

What you've provided is one theory of how Iranians view the conquests. I don't wanna assume a 'Bias' in it although I've seen the tendency in many Iranian sources to devalue the Arab conquest and attribute it (as much as possible) to external reasons without giving sufficient credit to Arab effort....

As far as I know, the Parthian Empire lasted until around 230 AD or something, and since that time the Sassanids were in control. So this makes their reign until Arab conquests close to 400 years....It is debatable that any Parthian influence have survived that long.

On another note, the Parthian history itself is not comprehensive, at least to the degree of the Sassanid....Below is an abstract from Wiki:

Native and external sources
" Local and foreign written accounts, as well as non-textual artifacts have been used to reconstruct Parthian history.[145] Although the Parthian court maintained records, the Parthians had no formal study of history; the earliest universal history of Iran, the Khwaday-Namag, was not compiled until the reign of the last Sassanid ruler Yazdegerd III (r. 632–651 AD).[146] Indigenous sources on Parthian history remain scarce, with fewer of them available than for any other period of Iranian history.[147] Most contemporary written records on Parthia contain Greek as well as Parthian and Aramaic inscriptions. "

Now looking at the issue again....

There is no denial in any source that the Persian state was weakened, for sure that was one reason for the conquest. However, the point is that weakness is a political one, one that had no material bearing on the quality of the Persian military force.....

The proof is obvious, the whole campaign took several years to fully overthrow the Sassanids, it had above 10 or 11 battles (other than seiges), in all battles fought the Sassanids outnumberd Arabs by at least 3:1 or 2:1....

It makes sense to have the Sassanid weakness as a supplementary reason but in no way that could qualify as a 'main' or 'core' reason for the conquest !!....Credit should be given where it should be, Empires don't fall so easily....

What you've provided is one theory of how Iranians view the conquests. I don't wanna assume a 'Bias' in it although I've seen the tendency in many Iranian sources to devalue the Arab conquest and attribute it (as much as possible) to external reasons without giving sufficient credit to Arab effort....

Then I am assuming you have read her book and checked her historiography and methodology.

Quote:

Native and external sources
" Local and foreign written accounts, as well as non-textual artifacts have been used to reconstruct Parthian history.[145] Although the Parthian court maintained records, the Parthians had no formal study of history; the earliest universal history of Iran, the Khwaday-Namag, was not compiled until the reign of the last Sassanid ruler Yazdegerd III (r. 632–651 AD).[146] Indigenous sources on Parthian history remain scarce, with fewer of them available than for any other period of Iranian history.[147] Most contemporary written records on Parthia contain Greek as well as Parthian and Aramaic inscriptions. "

Yeah, I prefer reading the actual book. Wikipedia? The 3 references are all from 1983! Don't you think there might have been some further scholarship in Sassanid historiography since then?